Weren't you in favor of Sinclair's decision to block nightline's reading of the dead soldiers names to honor their service because Sinclair felt it was a political message made to look like news? Now they are broadcasting a one sided documentary and calling it news, and you don't have a problem with that? You don't see the hypocrisy?<br><br>--------<br>Ryan<br><br>11-02-04 end of an error

Daily Press (Victorville, CA)<br><br>Wednesday, October 13, 2004<br><br><br>OUR OPINION: Stolen honor, stolen choices<br><br><br>Unless a coalition of United States senators get their way, a 42-minute film about John Kerry's effect on American POWs during and after the Vietnam War is going to be aired by 62 television stations across the country sometime before Nov. 2.<br><br>The stations, owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., serve about a quarter of the nation's homes with TV sets ... which means pretty much a quarter of the nation's homes. The film, "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," was made by a man named Carlton Sherwood, a Vietnam vet, and is, according to most reports, vehemently anti-Kerry. In it, according to those who've already seen it, former Vietnam prisoners of war allege that Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned home from Vietnam prolonged their own ordeal for two years by boosting the morale of the North Vietnamese military.<br><br><br><br>Improper use<br><br>The 18 senators involved in the coalition signed a letter to the Federal Communications Commission asking for an investigation, and what they want to know is whether Sinclair's plan to air the film would be an improper use of public airways. Sinclair has said it will preempt regular programming to show the film, which is what's prompted the call for an "investigation." <br><br>No doubt you've already figured out that the senators are all Democrats. California's senior senator, Dianne Feinstein, is of course among them. They're seeking an investigation because they're fearful that the film will sway enough "undecided" voters to affect Nov. 2's outcome, and their intent is to intimidate Sinclair into canceling its plan.<br><br>Consider, now, the mindset involved here. The Democrat senators believe that government has the right to determine and control content on privately owned television stations. Underlying this belief is that viewers can't be trusted — i.e., they're too stupid — to determine for themselves whether the material "Stolen Honor" presents is worthy of their consideration. <br><br><br><br>Liberal mode<br><br>But those viewers are not a captive audience; they can simply change the channel, or hit the off button. TV markets Sinclair serves are the same as TV markets across the country; a vast variety of choices regarding content are available. And exercising choice over what to watch is basic to individual freedom. But the coalition senators, in true liberal mode, want to limit those choices by filtering out messages they don't agree with.<br><br>Did John Kerry's activities following his return to America from Vietnam affect the treatment and prolong the imprisonment of the POWs? We don't know; we weren't there. But the POWs were, and some — perhaps even a majority — believe so. Is hearing and watching them say so too inflammatory and one-sided for the electorate to properly, and fairly, digest? In the partisan judgment of the coalition, the answer is yes. <br><br>And what were members of that coalition doing when Dan Rather used "60 Minutes" to publicize forged documents impugning George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard? Calling on the FCC to investigate CBS? Well, no. They were applauding.<br><br>Steve Williams<br><br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust

you posted that long article that fails to mention the main argument against Sinclair . . . that the FCC allows Sinclair to broadcast on PUBLIC AIRWAVES through a license that Sinclair receives from the FCC. the FCC doesn't regulate Sundance, HBO, movie theaters (e.g., Fahrenheit 9/11), etc.<br><br>sometimes i wonder how so many conservatives can be so easily duped by karl rove's tactics. then i see a post like yours. <br><br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>you posted that long article that fails to mention the main argument against Sinclair . . . that the FCC allows Sinclair to broadcast on PUBLIC AIRWAVES through a license that Sinclair receives from the FCC. the FCC doesn't regulate Sundance, HBO, movie theaters (e.g., Fahrenheit 9/11), etc.<br><br>sometimes i wonder how so many conservatives can be so easily duped by karl rove's tactics. then i see a post like yours.<p><hr></blockquote><p>What are you afraid of? Surely you know how the on/off button works.<br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>What are you afraid of? Surely you know how the on/off button works.<br><p><hr></blockquote><p>that's sure ignorant given what you just posted in the article. <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The stations, owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., serve about a quarter of the nation's homes with TV sets ... which means pretty much a quarter of the nation's homes . . . [the video] was made by a man named Carlton Sherwood, a Vietnam vet, and is, according to most reports, vehemently anti-Kerry.<p><hr></blockquote><p>do the math.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>In reply to:<br><br>What are you afraid of? Surely you know how the on/off button works.<br><br><br>that's sure ignorant given what you just posted in the article.<br>In reply to:<br><br>The stations, owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., serve about a quarter of the nation's homes with TV sets ... which means pretty much a quarter of the nation's homes . . . [the video] was made by a man named Carlton Sherwood, a Vietnam vet, and is, according to most reports, vehemently anti-Kerry.<br><br><br>do the math.<p><hr></blockquote><p>But those viewers are not a captive audience; they can simply change the channel, or hit the off button. TV markets Sinclair serves are the same as TV markets across the country; a vast variety of choices regarding content are available. And exercising choice over what to watch is basic to individual freedom. But the coalition senators, in true liberal mode, want to limit those choices by filtering out messages they don't agree with.<br><br>Wouldn't want to disfranchise anyone, would you?<br><br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>A belligerent assault on decency by corporate douchebags with a political agenda to influence an election?<p><hr></blockquote><p>It sounds to me like a story that has compelling reason to be told. Let me decide on the decency, agenda and influence, douchebag.<br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust

A compelling story that you are free to buy at stolenhonor.com and which will be saturated on FoxNews as newsworthy clips, discussions and interviews. Nobody is censoring or supressing the story.<br><br>As I've said all along, Sinclair's stockholder's will ultimately decide if this is a wise choice. Just the same as overstock.com's decision to send 5000 copies of FarenHype to the troops is going to have some corporate consequences in it's wake.<br><br><br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>A compelling story that you are free to buy at stolenhonor.com and which will be saturated on FoxNews as newsworthy clips, discussions and interviews. Nobody is censoring or supressing the story.<br><br>As I've said all along, Sinclair's stockholder's will ultimately decide if this is a wise choice. Just the same as overstock.com's decision to send 5000 copies of FarenHype to the troops is going to have some corporate consequences in it's wake.<p><hr></blockquote><p>There is a noteworthy effort to censor or suppress the story.<br><br>And they will choose, as will I.<br><br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.